Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!nuzba.szn.dk!pnx.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Simon <bad@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.php
Subject: Re: simpletest vs phpunit vs ...
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:15:49 +0200
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <aop5rmF6si4U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <aogq26FaaoiU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net p1BOt2PiDpnPn5JzPX61qwd00HPLUeT7eG9jyV7CZ1n3FDH4iVTr3H2NZGKvWYF74s
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HxZptSXHDIXYfG5Iirbjp9wuYs4=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
In-Reply-To: <aogq26FaaoiU1@mid.individual.net>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.php:8431

On 2013/02/19 10:05 AM, Simon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I currently use Simpletest to unit test the back-end of my site, (I
> still aim to cover the front-end at some later stage).
> I have about 2000 tests and try to write more every day...
>

As a test<sic>, I installed PHPUnit and migrated the tests, (it turns 
out it is fairly straightforward for most cases).

Off the bat, I cannot see any major improvements in the tests, apart 
from code coverage.

Code coverage alone is, to me at least, a major plus.

Some of my critical code, that I thought was well covered, only has 37% 
coverage.

While I don't want to become militant about code coverage, there are 
some functions that I definitely need to re-look at and add some testing 
for.

So PHPUnit is a definite win for now.

Simon